With the advent of an industrial society, people are exposed to noise pollution at greater and greater levels; both from background, such as street traffic, airplanes, construction sites and intentional exposure to high sound levels such as cell phones, MP3 players, and rock concerts. Studies show that ear damage, leading to permanent hearing impairment is not only increasing in the general population, but increasing at a significantly faster rate in younger populations.
The potential for hearing damage is a function of both the level and the duration of exposure to the sound stimulus. Safe listening durations at various loudness levels are known, and can be calculated by averaging audio output levels over time to yield a time-weighted average. Standard damage-risk guidelines published by OSHA, NIOSH or other agencies are known. This calculation can be even further improved by accounting for aspects of the playback scenario, specifically the characteristics of the sound source and their proximity to the listener's ear.
Studies have also indicated that hearing damage is a cumulative phenomenon. Although hearing damage due to industrial or background noise exposure is more thoroughly understood, the risk of exposing one's self to excessive noise, especially with the use of headphones has also been recently studied. Protecting the ear from ambient noise is primarily done with the use of static earplugs that attempt to shield the inner ear from excessively high decibel noise. Background noise canceling earphones such as those produced by Bose and others, attempt to protect the ear from excessive ambient noise by producing a counter noise wave to cancel out the ambient noise at the ear. These prior art devices have been less than satisfactory because they do not completely prevent high decibel noise from reaching the ear, and do not account for the duration of exposure to harmful sounds at the ear.
It is also known from the prior art to provide active noise reduction at the ear to protect the ear from exposure to loud noises as disclosed in U.S. patent Application No. US2005/0254665. The art actively attenuating noise reaching the inner ear utilizing a control; a connection with an earpiece and attenuating the noise to the ear. However, there is no monitoring of the noise over time to account for the cumulative effect. Furthermore, there is no accounting for any restorative effects within the ear for sound level exposures, which are sufficiently low to allow recovery, rather than destruction.
Dosimeters, such as that described in U.S. published Application No. US200510254667 are known. The device periodically measures prior sound level in the ambient environment. However, the device does not take into account the cumulative effect of the noise over multiple incidences of exposure (e.g., one day to the next) or the effect of any restorative period. Furthermore, no remedial action is automatically taken as a result of the readings.
It is also known from the prior art that headphones for consumer electronics have been provided with a predetermined maximum output level in an attempt to prevent ear damage. This approach is ineffective as it does not take into account listening duration and the calculation of risk for auditory injury. Other headphones are maximum-limited to produce levels that can still result in significant overexposure given enough time, or limit the user to levels, which may not be sufficient to achieve an adequate short term listening level. In the latter case, consumer acceptance for the protective gear could be severely limited and a product would fail to survive in a competitive market and therefore be of no use.
Another alternative known in the art is to reduce the headphone output levels by increasing earphone impedance via an accessory placed between the media player and the earphones. The limitation of this approach is that it gives no consideration to the duration of exposure, and again either the user's chosen listening level cannot be achieved because the maximum level is too limited, or the level is sufficient to allow the user access to high enough sound levels, but risk overexposure due to potential duration of use.
It is known from U.S. Publication No. 2007/0129828 to provide automated control of audio volume parameters in order to protect hearing. A method of operating a media player includes the step of playing back audio media and refining a maximum volume parameter for the playing of the media by the media player. The refining is based at least in part on the playback of audio media during a time period existing prior to the execution of refining the maximum volume allowed. The refinement is intended to minimize harm to the user's hearing.
Applicants cannot confirm that such an approach has been commercialized. However, even if commercialized, it suffers from the shortcomings that the refinement is based on a theoretical noise volume delivered to the ear as a function of the output signal of the device and parameters of the earpiece connected to the device and is based upon a credit system based on volume. There is no measurement of the actual noise delivered to the ear. Furthermore, the calculation does not take into account the ambient noise of the device user or the noise reduction rate of the earpiece relative to the ambient noise. In other words, the actual volume level to which the ear is exposed is not taken into account. Accordingly, a severe miscalculation of the actual ear exposure, and resulting ear harm, may exist as a result of use of this related art method. Additionally the credit system is not described in detail sufficient for one of ordinary skill to construct the device. For example U.S. Publication No. 2007/0129828 refers to Cal-OSHA profiles, and states in the same paragraph that Cal-OSHA appear to be rudimentary and does not deal with exposure “in a sophisticated way with varying exposure over time” and does not “ . . . account for recovery.” However, U.S. Publication No. 2007/0129828 states in one example “ . . . the maximum allowed volume is determined based upon determined credits with reference to a profile such as profiles provided by . . . (Cal-OSHA) . . . ” However, U.S. Publication No. 2007/0129828, stated that Cal-OSHA doesn't take into effect recovery, and additionally fails to refer to any detailed recovery calculation.
Accordingly, a system that overcomes the shortcomings in the related art would be useful.